The Best Washington Post article ever
September 8, 2012 1 Comment
So, Laurel and I began by submitting a “5 Myths” summary of our book to the Washington Post a few weeks ago. They liked it, but suggested we try submitting it as as “How Parenthood Became Political” essay, rather than as something as part of (my much beloved) 5 myths series. We slaved away, and slaved away, and went through more edits with the assistant Outlook editor than I can actually believe, but I’m now published in the Washington Post. It will actually run in tomorrow’s Outlook section. It’s just plain cool to get something in the 2nd most prestigious national newspaper, but for me it is especially cool as I grew up reading the Post every day, still read it every day on-line, and it’s the paper many of my friends and family back in NoVA read every day. I love that many people who know me, but aren’t on FB, are just going to stumble upon this and say, “OMG, it’s Steven!” Damn it, you better read the whole thing (its surprisingly long– much longer than a 5 myths would have been),but here’s how it starts:
It is at “the center of the public policy process,” Ronald Reagan asserted in his 1988 State of the Union address. It is “the foundation of American life,” Bill Clinton agreed in his 1996 address to Congress. It will “always be front and center” in President Obama’s agenda, the White House has declared.
What are they talking about: Democracy? National security? The economy? No. They’re talking about the family.
Odes to families — their values, their struggles to make ends meet, their efforts to protect their children — have been broadcast in nearly every political campaign in recent times. Mitt Romney, in his speech accepting the Republican nomination last month, made the promise “to help you and your family” his central message. Obama, in his convention speech, argued that this election will have a huge impact “on our children’s lives for decades.” And at both conventions combined, “families” was the fourth-most-mentioned word or phrase, right behind “jobs,” “Romney” and “Obama.”…
And for most of the 20th century, the American family was simply not on the political radar; its rise to prominence has been recent. In the 1952 campaign, for example, Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson rarely mentioned family or parents. Over the next several decades, the few times Republicans or Democrats mentioned “the family,” it was usually in reference to the plight of poor families, disadvantaged children or family farmers.
It was only when the traditional family structure began to unwind, starting in the 1970s — when divorce rates rose, mothers streamed into the workforce and more people began having kids outside marriage — that the parties began to politicize the family. These dramatic changes complicated the lives of many parents and were viewed as an assault on the American way of life, creating dissatisfied constituencies that both parties have furiously tried to court: parents, especially mothers, stressed out by trying to balance increased work and family responsibilities; and more-traditional voters who became deeply concerned about the decline of the conventional family.
Hooray for me. Hope you enjoy the piece.
Congratulations! It’s a great piece, saying things I’ve been concerned about for some time. I always cringe a bit whenever Democratic politicians emphasize almost exclusively their concerns for ‘the middle class’, wondering both what happened to their traditional (and, in my opinion, appropriate) concern for the poorest, and also why they don’t seem to see the linkage of the issues the poorest confront with those the middle class also have to deal with – as you point out in your piece.
I have a brother in law who recently ‘came out’ as a hater of the Democrats, blaming them (specifically going back to LBJ) for what he sees as the decline in public civility, education level, sense of personal responsibility. He works part time in a shop in one of the roughest sections of the south Bronx, and encounters people who are often rude, semi-literate, and – in his estimation – barely functional as citizens. He admits to having been listening to Rush Limbaugh for years (in the car as he drives from his middle-class suburb to the ghetto) and that his opinion has been formed by this kind of angry, crypto-Libertarian talk. He says “I refuse to pay any more taxes to support these people!”, which is the rhetoric used by Rush and many of the Randian ideologues. I think my brother in law is more than a little crazy, and I don’t agree with his (and so many others’) simplistic analysis (blame the Democrats). I think the way society evolves is a complicated organic process.
BUT I wonder how a political scientist would in fact explain the country’s general decline in educational standards and performance, decline in civility and respect for one another, for the lack of political will to pay for the maintenance of public infrastructure, etc etc. I wonder if some of the things people complain about have always been with us, and that we’re just more aware of them now that we are more mobile and connected than ever before. Was the ‘Great Society’ directly responsible for societal ills we live with today? I think those programs addressed many societal ills themselves…so if they in turn caused other ills, was it worth it?
I don’t think there are any simple answers, but I suspect you think about some of this for a living, so I wonder what you have to say about it.
Thanks, and congratulations again.
DP